Early Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines in Healthcare Workers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Song JY
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8055510 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-BSST563 | biostudies-other
Project description:RNA was extracted from whole blood of subjects collected in Tempus tubes prior to COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccination. D01 and D21 correspond to samples collected at pre-dose 1 and pre-dose 2 respectively. RNA was also extracted from blood collected at indicated time points post-vaccination. DB1, DB2, DB4 and DB7 correspond to booster day 1 (pre-booster), booster day 2, booster day 4 and booster day 7 respectively. The case subject experienced cardiac complication following mRNA booster vaccination. We performed gene expression analysis of case versus controls over time.
2023-03-20 | E-MTAB-12829 | biostudies-arrayexpress
Project description:The assessment of the efficacy and safety of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in actual practice is extremely important, and monitoring efforts are being implemented worldwide. In Japan, a joint council in the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare is held every two to three weeks to summarise information on the adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, with careful assessment of individual case safety reports and comparison with background incidence rates. In 2021, the joint council mainly reviewed anaphylaxis, death, myocarditis/pericarditis, and thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. These activities resulted in several safety-related regulatory actions, including the revision of vaccine package inserts with warnings about myocarditis/pericarditis. International sharing of vaccine safety information, as well as details of the evaluation systems, is important for international discussion and decision-making on better safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines.
| S-EPMC8960038 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11020364 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo understand COVID-19 vaccine perspectives among healthcare workers serving diverse communities.MethodsA dual English/Spanish survey was distributed to healthcare workers in the United States from 3/12/2021-4/22/2021 by the Migrant Clinicians Network, Society of Refugee Healthcare Providers, a Federally Qualified Healthcare Center, and social media advertisement to general primary care workers.Results517 responses were at least 50% complete and included in the analysis. Among these, 88% (457/517) indicated vaccine acceptance. Factors associated with acceptance included not reporting any vaccine concerns, identifying as male, ≥65 years of age, being a physician or advanced practice provider, and interacting directly with patients from refugee, immigrant, and migrant (RIM) communities. Participants identified educational information as most helpful for themselves when making a vaccine decision, but a healthcare provider's recommendation as most helpful for their patients.ConclusionHealthcare workers, especially those serving RIM communities, are vaccine accepting. Tailoring vaccine-related information to healthcare workers may improve vaccine confidence for both themselves and patients who rely on them for information.
| S-EPMC8904141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The dataset includes the particulars of 515 respondents on safety behavior during COVID-19. The questionnaires were adapted using Social Learning Theory and Social Exchange Theory. The variables included in dataset are Transactional Leadership (TSL), Transformational Leadership (TFL), Employee Well-Being (EWB) and Safety behavior (SB). Moreover, the dataset also contains the demographic profile of the respondents. Data was collected with the help of self-administered questionnaire from eight public hospitals in Punjab, Pakistan, namely Services Hospital Lahore, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital Lahore, Government General Hospital Faisalabad, DHQ Hospital Chiniot, Municipal General Hospital Sargodha, DHQ Hospital Jhang, DHQ Hospital Multan and Sulehri Children & General Hospital Sialkot. This dataset could provide a significant insight for future research in employee safety behavior.
| S-EPMC8767930 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Surveys showed that vaccine hesitancy may influence the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines in healthcare workers (HCWs) and the general population. Currently, the actual acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs has rarely been reported. In the present survey, we investigated the real-world acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs in perinatal medicine during the first three-month period of vaccination in China and to identify the main reason for the decline of vaccination. HCWs (1087) who participated in a Chinese national symposium on perinatal medicine during 16-18 April 2021 were invited to answer a 27-question questionnaire online. A total of 1051 HCWs completed the questionnaire. Of them, 86.2% (906/1051) accepted the COVID-19 vaccination and 13.8% (145/1051) declined the vaccination. Because of the vaccine hesitancy, one-fourth of the vaccinated participants did not accept the vaccination until consulted with others or requested by employers. The main reason for the decline of vaccination in 145 unvaccinated HCWs was the concern about vaccine safety. The results indicate that vaccination request by employers may promote vaccine acceptance. More convincing data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines appears to be important to increase the acceptance of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8310137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study is aimed to identify the adverse effects associated with three types of coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines. Approximately 1736 individuals agreed to participate in this study. The participants involved in the study were individuals who had received the first dose or full course (two doses) of the vaccine at least 30 days before the survey. A direct and interactive web-based system interview with a paper and electronic version of the questionnaire was used for all participants. A total of 1736 randomized individuals were identified. The reactogenicity of the vaccines including pain, redness, urticaria, and swelling at the site of the injection was reported in 34.56% of the participants. Local site reaction was reported in more individuals who had Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines than those who received the Sinopharm vaccine. The systemic events were more common with AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines, symptoms reported were fatigue, body pain, headache, muscle pain, fever, and gastrointestinal side effects. There were no correlations between age or gender, and the duration of the adverse effects for the three vaccines. Swelling and severe allergic reaction of the eyelids, severe hypotension, generalized body aches, shortness of breath, weakness and numbness on the injected arm, acute hyperglycemia, severe chest pain, and fever more than 39°C were among the unusual signs and symptoms reported by the participants. Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Sinopharm vaccines were found to be safe and Sinopharm vaccine showed a lower prevalence of adverse effects compared with the other vaccines. The duration and severity of adverse effects were not affected by age or gender. Unusual side effects should be closely monitored to establish determine they are linked to the immunization.
| S-EPMC8426829 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease patients show a high mortality in cases of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV‑2) infection. Thus, information on the sero-status of nephrology personnel might be crucial for patient protection; however, limited information exists about the presence of SARS-CoV‑2 antibodies in asymptomatic individuals.MethodsWe examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV‑2 IgG and IgM antibodies among healthcare workers of a tertiary care kidney center during the the first peak phase of the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in Austria using an orthogonal test strategy and a total of 12 commercial nucleocapsid protein or spike glycoprotein-based assays as well as Western blotting and a neutralization assay.ResultsAt baseline 60 of 235 study participants (25.5%, 95% confidence interval, CI 20.4-31.5%) were judged to be borderline positive or positive for IgM or IgG using a high sensitivity/low specificity threshold in one test system. Follow-up analysis after about 2 weeks revealed IgG positivity in 12 (5.1%, 95% CI: 2.9-8.8%) and IgM positivity in 6 (2.6%, 95% CI: 1.1-5.6) in at least one assay. Of the healthcare workers 2.1% (95% CI: 0.8-5.0%) showed IgG nucleocapsid antibodies in at least 2 assays. By contrast, positive controls with proven COVID-19 showed antibody positivity among almost all test systems. Moreover, serum samples obtained from healthcare workers did not show SARS-CoV‑2 neutralizing capacity, in contrast to positive controls.ConclusionUsing a broad spectrum of antibody tests the present study revealed inconsistent results for SARS-CoV‑2 seroprevalence among asymptomatic individuals, while this was not the case among COVID-19 patients.Trial registration numberCONEC, ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT04347694.
| S-EPMC8034034 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHealth care workers (HCWs) have been at increased risk of infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and as essential workers have been prioritised for vaccination. Due to increased exposure HCW are considered a predictor of what might happen in the general population, particularly working age adults. This study aims to summarise effect of vaccination in this 'at risk' cohort.MethodsOvid MEDLINE and Embase were searched, and 358 individual articles were identified. Of these 49 met the inclusion criteria for review and 14 were included in a meta-analysis.ResultsParticipants included were predominantly female and working age. Median time to infection was 51 days. Reported vaccine effectiveness against infection, symptomatic infection, and infection requiring hospitalisation were between 5 and 100 %, 34 and 100 %, and 65 and 100 % (respectively). No vaccinated HCW deaths were recorded in any study. Pooled estimates of protection against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation were, respectively, 84.7 % (95 % CI 72.6-91.5 %, p < 0.0001), 86.0 % (95 % CI 67.2 %-94.0 %; p < 0.0001), and 96.1 % (95 % CI 90.4 %-98.4 %). Waning protection against infection was reported by four studies, although protection against hospitalisation for severe infection persists for at least 6 months post vaccination.ConclusionsVaccination against SARS-CoV2 in HCWs is protective against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation. Waning protection is reported but this awaits more mature studies to understand durability more clearly. This study is limited by varying non-pharmacological responses to COVID-19 between included studies, a predominantly female and working age population, and limited information on asymptomatic transmission or long COVID protection.
| S-EPMC11364133 | biostudies-literature